Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?

Since they're already paying an outrageous amount for it outside the airport, they'd be willing to pay a slightly more outrageous amount for it INSIDE the airport: no revolt.

Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?

Her kids still get their dose of high fructose corn syrup once on the plane, and again, higher priced juice available on the other side of the gate keeps the revolting to a minimum. I do remember some bad press about a woman being required to drink her own breast milk (from a bottle) to prove it wasn't milk-colored liquid explosives, but she got it on.

Anyway: no revolt.

Could you imagine what would happen if you told the guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner, and they have to walk through security on the icky floors wearing only socks/stockings?

I don't actually know many people with fancy boots... maybe they've all been shot by security because they went a hootin' and a hollerin'. I suspect though that they may have been proud to do their part to stop terrorism. Prada shoes probably whined a bit and bitched on twitter about it. And at the end of the day, having your shoes off for 5-20 mins is not that annoying, even the spoiled have a hard time making much noise about it. Once again, on the other side of the gate, things go back to normal: no revolt

All the things you point to as failing to start a revolution are things that are very short inconvinences to small demographics. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I don't believe they could get away with banning all -outside- lithium batteries just to sell you higher priced lithium batteries inside the airport. They're going to ask you to give up your device for the entire trip. As you point out, theres going to be a lot more people affected by this one. Therefore, I don't think they would do this one, for fear of losing buisiness.

Disclaimer: I'm trying to read the wiki page on IPv6, but I'm so ignorant that I can't even understand that... so maybe answering this question will be pointless. I'm not following why verizon is not allowing IPv6?

The final line in TFA is

And based on their position, theyâ(TM)re probably (although we have not confirmed, but based on the 29% figure we came up with it is extremely likely) blocking similar ranges from the other regional registries in the name of global routability.

So it isn't that it will cost them more money to provide the full internet, it's that it's easier for their organization purposes? They just really want IPv4 exhaustion because then it will be harder to criticize Verizon? Or is it more likely someone at Verizon knew about as much about IPv6 as I do and decided they didn't like the sound of it at all?

Along the lines of heat and cold, you have several different type of pain receptors which are seperate from your proprioception sensors and tactile sensors. I think nociception (sensing pain) definitely qualifies as it's own seperate sense if this webcam thing does. It shouldn't be lumped under touch, most aren't triggered that way.

Also, when have government agencies ever restrained themselves in favor of privacy among citizens? The government in 1936 said that social security numbers were never supposed to be used for identification*...

We also had a few constitutional provisions that seem to say you can't spy on innocent civilians. Hard to believe now I know. And of course the FBI wildly overstepped it's bounds from day one.

We really need to start drilling "Protecting public privacy is the most important thing for your job" into the heads of law enforcement types for a few generations, and making sure it sticks, before we start tearing down what few barriers they respect. Otherwise we may as well cut to the chase and put RFID chips under our skin.

Oh yeah, I was of course sidestepping the issue of "Is the finding ACTUALLY valid." Somewhat like what the chinese government will do, only they probably won't do it with sarcasm. It'd be refreshing if they did though.

Chinese officials will conclude that the scientific findings are acurrate and convincing, will acknowledge that the dam did cause the quake, will apologize sincerely, and resign in disgrace. The replacements will then close down the dam, making sure to dismantle it in an ecologically sensible way, doing the least disruption to the surrounding communities as well, and every victim of the quake will be compensated accordingly. You know, much as it would happen here.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of stargate SG-1 and the gould (guauld?) snake things, they crawl down your mouth and heal you. Added bonus: knowledge of ancient alien technology and a new megalomaniac personality.

I think the FCC may have been more motivated to fine them for the nation wide janet jackson thing, and the hundreds of thousands of idiots who were screaming to them for blood. This is a much smaller population, so hopefully this won't become a thing.

At the very least, they will get fined probably, but by pacifying the idiots they can hopefully silence a few of them screaming for even more restrictions.

So the masses of idiots who write letters to the FCC urging the immediate nationalization of all TV will be pacified. The FCC was flooded with complaints at the Janet Jackson bit, and I bet they weren't happy with the delay they were forced to put in for all live broadcasts. You can guess at least a few people are so miffed at seeing human body parts that they want more government control.

It would be nice if they didn't apologize so deeply, grew a spine, and issued a statement that reflected the ridiculousness of this situation, something like

"We're sorry, that was of course unintentional, and when we find whoever did it they're at least going to lose their job here. Of course, it's not like this is anything too bad, it's anatomy, grow up already and get over it."